LANSING, MI -- Local officials say they were caught off guard by fast-tracked legislation moving through Michigan's Republican-led Legislature, warning the measure would "undoubtedly cause financial harm to Ingham County."

Senate Bill 652, introduced two weeks ago, would shift litigation against the state out of the Ingham County Circuit Court, which has served as Michigan's Court of Claims since the late 1970s. Instead, the Michigan Supreme Court would appoint four Court of Appeals judges from at least two different districts to hear the cases.

The state Senate approved the measure last week in a party-line vote. The House Government Operations Committee is scheduled to take it up on Tuesday. Ingham County, meanwhile, completed its budget two weeks ago without any warning about the legislation that was about to drop.

"I think it's very regrettable that the Senate pushed this forward without so much as a phone call to the county and without considering the implications and costs," said Ingham Controller Timothy Dolehanty, who serves as the county's chief fiscal and administrative officer.

Ingham County's new budget includes roughly $450,000 for Court of Claims activities, some of which is funded by the state. Officials say they would be forced to revise that budget -- and potentially lay off workers -- if the Senate bill moves forward.

Dolehanty also noted the legislation would transfer jurisdiction immediately, leaving the county on the hook for costs associated with packing up and shipping case files.

Ingham County Board Chair Deb Nolan said the county and city of Lansing still owe $6.7 million in construction bond payments for Veterans Memorial Courthouse, built downtown in the early 2000s to serve as a venue for both local and state cases.

"Of course we are concerned about the immediate negative impact on dedicated employees, but the county also made a substantial good faith investment in a new building to accommodate the Court of Claims caseload," Nolan said in a statement. "The Senate did not make contact with the county before passing their bill, but clearly the impact is significant."

The Appellate Practice and Negligence Law sections of the State Bar of Michigan also oppose the SB 652, with the latter suggesting the bill is "far too broad and is unnecessary.

"If there is concern about having the 30th Circuit Court being the sole Court of Claims, it should be expanded to include other counties such as Oakland, Wayne or Kent rather than shifted to the Court of Appeals - a body that is not suited to the task," said a public policy position adopted by State Bar members last week.

Bob Labrant, senior counsel at the Lansing-based Sterling Corp. political consulting firm, offered support for the bill last week during a Senate Judiciary committee.

"Court of Appeals judges assigned to Court of Claims cases would have been elected by voters from 25 percent of the state, not by voters from a county that accounts for just three percent of Michigan's population," he said in a written copy of his testimony.

"Under SB 652, the Court of Claims will have judges from at least two of the Court of Appeals districts, meaning that at least half of Michigan's population will be represented on the court."

Sponsoring Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, has argued that citizens would benefit by being able to file Court of Claims cases in multiple locations around the state and called his proposal "common-sense reform."

Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing, have argued that the bill is a political maneuver by the GOP-led Legislature to find a friendlier venue for challenges to controversial state laws.

"Like the overreaches the Republican Majority has become so fond of, this bill is nothing more than partisan rigging and shameless political protectionism," Whitmer said in a fiery floor speech before last week's Senate vote.

Ingham County Circuit Court judges are elected by a voting bloc that tends to prefer Democrats. A majority of Michigan Supreme Court justices, who would appoint judges to hear suits against the state, are Republican nominees who won statewide elections.